The Canon EOS Rebel SL1, or 100D as it's known outside North America, is the company's latest entry-level DSLR and the smallest and lightest model with an APS-C sensor to date. It's around 1cm smaller in every dimension than Canon's next smallest DSLR yet manages not to compromise on control, composition or connectivity. It may sport the same 18 Megapixels as earlier DSLRs but features an improved hybrid AF system with phase detect points spread over 80% of the sensor. Does a tiny DSLR with an optical viewfinder and native access to the full EF catalogue render mirror-less cameras redundant? Find out in my Canon EOS SL1 100D review!

wow, i was excited to read about this camera. i've got wrist problems, so i've been shooting with panny m4/3 cameras, which are nice, and recently a NEX 5R, which i'm not in love with. i'd love a light enough camera with an optical viewfinder and DOF preview button! and since weight is an issue for me, i'm glad they didn't throw in wifi or anything else that will add to it. funny how most of the cameras i've been shooting are usually written up by review sites as aimed mostly at point and shoot upgraders. i'm not the only DSLR downgrader i know who's been trying to find a substitute for an actual DSLR that isn't as... well... unsatisfying as the T3. i've already talked to a couple guys who will be buying the SL1 as a lighter second body to carry along with their 7D or 60D.

can't wait to try this camera in person - especially after the disappointment of the EOS-M. no viewfinder at all, not even an optional one? jeez...

If Canon makes more small lenses, like 40mm pancake and somehow manages to make hybrid AF work fast, then this kind of camera will make some sense. Definetly more sense than the EOS M.EF-S lenses can be smaller can't they?)

for those who would be more interested in the lighter weight of the SL1 rather than the smaller size there's light-weight lenses like the 55-250. sure, it's kit lens level, but it's also well under a pound and the combination will do much nicer quality pics than a megazoom. the nifty fifty isn't a bad lens, and it's stupid light, and the STM kit lens is okay for those who want light and a little zoom.

Jiko - i loved my panasonic lenses. they were very well-stabilized and also light, plus they had useful focal ranges. i wish canon made a 45-200mm lens!

WillS - i've always throught the T3 was a bloater. you can feel hollowness behind the plastic, there's no rubber on the grip, and it's missing every useful feature an enthusiast could want while still being a DSLR.

Definitely going to echo the "smaller lenses and this is a winner" sentiment... This would allow me to replace my XSi as my 'travel camera' if they start doing more pancake-y type things. An EF-S equivalent to the EF-M 22mm f/2 they made would be my idea solution, or some kind of adapter to bring EF-M lenses to the EF mount (opposite of what we have now) while allowing for a compact size.

While it's the smallest APS-C, it's not the smallest DSLR. The Olympus E4xx and E6xxx were smaller/lighter than this.

The elephant in the room for this Canon though are the large lenses. It's like F1 teams scrambling around to find aerodynamic savings here and there while the uncovered wheels account for 50% of aerodynamic drag.

The majority of buyers of this Canon won't go beyond the kit lenses, which look pretty large on this body, and the effective weight savings by using this body will be small. For people with small lens collections, the weight savings will be negligible.

The only thing that makes sense here are the use of small pancake primes for street photography where small is beautiful. I'm not familiar with Canon's lens line-up, but I think there are precious few options for small pancakes.

Has anyone does a more in depth comparison against the Olympus range size wise? I only have a quick search, the E-400 is longer, about same height and less thick. So volumetrically there might not be much in it. The weight I saw was also lighter for the E-400 but it was unclear if that included battery which is on the Canon.

Looks like a pretty interesting camera, what I think that it might be promising is the new hybrid AF system. The idea of the camera itself is good: a small, light and portable DSLR with the quality of the larger entry-level DSLRs. The one thing that was mentioned and would be good for Canon to do, is to begin making more pancake lenses like the 40mm, which I believe is the only one.Also, I think this camera can easily replace the T3, depending on it's price point. The T3 was never a great camera IMO.

I agree with pierovera. I would love to see Canon make accompanying pancake lenses to go with the current 40mm, like a nice wide and portrait (if that's technically possibly). Knowing Canon though they will be EF-S mount only to protect the new (but not cheap) primes that were released last year.

In defense of the 1100D I disagee that it 'was never a great camera'. I think it's just not a very interesting camera. A couple of relatives have this camera and they love the fact that it delivers clean images and is responsive over their mobiles and compacts when it matters. Sure the build could be better, but its the result that counts for it target audience, who are not neccassrily interested in all the complication that I (we) have become accustomed to and require.

Next summer they'll probably release a 150D / SL2 with a flip screen and a collapsible zoom lense. And the summer after that - 200D / SL3 with wi-fi, gps and two small pancakes.

Well; I guess the'll rather call it something like 110D - otherwise they'd meet the 300D pretty soon. I don't really believe in a flip screen as it'd make the camera bigger. Some small lenses would be nice though and Wifi, GPS etc. don't need too much space and I guess they could squeeze it in there.

pierovera wrote:

The one thing that was mentioned and would be good for Canon to do, is to begin making more pancake lenses like the 40mm, which I believe is the only one.

I guess they could easily make the 50mm 1.8 much smaller with the same optical design - just looking at how deep the first piece of glass is placed in it.